I was expecting to be asked what I meant by "inadequate", when I said that current lexical resources are inadequate. In the absence of a question, let me answer an unspoken one...

To be able to compose or speak according to an authentic style system, then it would be really handy for us to have;
ἀλείφειν (spec. vs abstr. χρίειν)

somewhere at least in an entry, so that we can choose the right one to use.

First I think you would need to clearly demonstrate that this is lexically determined in Greek, and not determined by other factors. So far, I don't know what I would look for to prove whether this is true - what results would invalidate the theory, and what results would prove it true? Once you have that kind of research hypothesis, you can see if it's true, and then propose it for the lexicons.

For instance, if ἀλείφειν is specific and χρίειν is abstract, are there specific contexts in which one should occur but not the other?

I was expecting to be asked what I meant by "inadequate", when I said that current lexical resources are inadequate. In the absence of a question, let me answer an unspoken one...

To be able to compose or speak according to an authentic style system, then it would be really handy for us to have;
ἀλείφειν (spec. vs abstr. χρίειν)

somewhere at least in an entry, so that we can choose the right one to use.

First I think you would need to clearly demonstrate that this is lexically determined in Greek, and not determined by other factors. So far, I don't know what I would look for to prove whether this is true - what results would invalidate the theory, and what results would prove it true? Once you have that kind of research hypothesis, you can see if it's true, and then propose it for the lexicons.

I can't for the life of my imagine why the issue of reasearch has come up again? I live in functioning but underdeveloped area of the world. There are no research libraries here. I don't see this phenomenon as some kind of theory. It is a skill in reading and composition. There is no exhaustive dataset. With some training and practice, it is really pretty easy to spot the patterns of general statements and specific ones. After reading extensively over a long period of time, while recognising the patterns, it is obvious that some words only occur in one or other of the two moieties. Where is there any theory in that? It is a practical skill and simple observation.

As I have said earlier, there are some words that change their meaning or sense according to context, such as κλήρος. There is a general or abstract meaning when it is used in general or abstract contexts and a concrete meaning when used in concrete contexts. Lexica give this information now, but don't specifically point out the context in which those meaning occur.

What lexicographer is going to give due consideration to any proposals that I make? If I send a letter to a publisher that their house should include such and so, I wouldn't expect even to get a reply, and if I did, it would be, "We have no idea what you are talking about". There are not enough people doing composition to warrant inclusion of material that would be useful for composition.

For instance, if ἀλείφειν is specific and χρίειν is abstract, are there specific contexts in which one should occur but not the other?

Yes. There are. Χρίειν occurs at the beginning of thoughts, much like the word ἀποστέλλειν does. Like πέμπειν too, ἀλείφειν also occurs at the end of thoughts. Sometmes thoughts cover many phrases and at other times they are contained in a single phrase.

The most definite thing that can be said from these observations is that when one composes, one has to limit the use of specific or general words to their respective speech style, and abstract or general style comes before the concrete.

I hope that I could get some criticism and suggestion on this idea from someone who has already thought through some issues like this, or who enjoys engaging with new ideas. Understandably, the forum lacks skilled moderation in the areas that I am generally interested in. Comments made from within the learning process, or the aclimatisation period that human beings have for new ideas are fairly predictable enough, but not of great value.

Jonathan, if you try working with this, it might be useful in your understanding of the text. This is a skill that one needs time to develop.

For instance, if ἀλείφειν is specific and χρίειν is abstract, are there specific contexts in which one should occur but not the other?

Yes. There are. Χρίειν occurs at the beginning of thoughts, much like the word ἀποστέλλειν does. Like πέμπειν too, ἀλείφειν also occurs at the end of thoughts. Sometmes thoughts cover many phrases and at other times they are contained in a single phrase.

I'm not sure how to identify the boundaries of a "thought". Here are the places I see these words used in the GNT.

Try to work with the data you've gotten together. I suggest that you organise them a bit as you work with them. Take some risks - civilised people are not going to criticise you for trying something new.

Amenities are provided for customers' convenience. You can piss, shit and spit there.

To substitute, χρίειν with 'customer', I would have said, "We know that 'customer' always occurs at the beginning of thoughts." Another way to say that is to point out that Koine authours are limited to using 'customer' only in the abstract / general speech style. Yet another way is to say that 'customer' is an indication that the proximity - in some cases on just one side, and in other cases on both sides - is the abstract / general moiety.

Relative clauses and clauses following some discourse markers are parenthetical.

[What I suspect is happening with relative phrases behaving like they do, is that they are preserving a possible earlier form of usage, from before the speech styles were divided on Platonic ideas vs forms thinking into the way we see them in the Koine Greek lexical set. That is to say that what I expect to find in Greek that has not been structured with an hellenistic idea vs forms structure is single phrases moving from abstract to concrete. That is why I used "thoughts" rather than "texts" or "speech acts". To speak of that further, by abstracting the lexical data based on what is clearly evident in that part of Greek that is divided into moieties, and then feeding that data back into word-order problems in relative clauses and phrases following some discourse markers produces some beautiful and interesting patterns too.]

The first steps in recognising the moieties that you are struggling with now, are actually the very simple part of the pattern. What is more difficult is to understand how the vocabukary evolved to the point that we see it in the Koine texts. Questions like what are the origins or lineages of individual words, are facinating.

For your above examples, you could do something like this...

Given the thought, "Amenities are provided for customers' convenience. You can piss, shit and spit there." mark the division between the abstract and the concrete with a line, or use two contrastive colours to highlight the beginning of the thought with one and the end with the other.

In the English it is easy because the word-stock developed into registers to mark and confirm social class distinctions in post-Norman society. English has the habit of using one register or the other in extended texts. That is similar to the Classical Greek genres, with their distinctive vocabularies for prose and verse. Greek of our period, at least, is not like that. It alternates between the abstract/general and concrete moieties, expressing that ideas could become forms, and that God could become man.

Jonathan, would you like to try to divide your examples now? Be confident, you can do it.

Jonathan, would you like to try to divide your examples now? Be confident, you can do it.

I think this is your project, not mine. I was trying to provide data that could help you state your theory more concretely and see if it holds or not. My intuition for where thoughts begin and end places some of these words in places you said they would not occur. But I don't know how you are dividing up the text, or what counts as the beginning or the ending of a thought.

I think you've done a first step where you see some patterns in a text. Are those patterns lexically determined according to the principle you suggest, or due to something else? To answer that question, I think you need a clear enough way to state your principle that you can look at any text, divide it up, and test it. Once you have done that to enough examples, other people can look at your work and see if they agree with your conclusions.

I was trying to provide data that could help you state your theory more concretely and see if it holds or not. My intuition for where thoughts begin and end places some of these words in places you said they would not occur. But I don't know how you are dividing up the text, or what counts as the beginning or the ending of a thought.

I understand you put effort into that. Actually, I did the same search, and looked at the same set of verses before mentioning χρίειν and ἀλείφειν.

I think you've done a first step where you see some patterns in a text.

I am not at the first step in understanding this, you were.

As I said before, seeing patterns in the text is the third step. The first step is engaging with the text. The second step is recognising over a long period of time that the speech style of the text alternates between abstract / general statements and descriptions of details / concrete tangible things. The third step is that over continued wide reading, it is noticeable that some words only occur in one of the speech styles or the other, and some in both speech styles but with different meanings.

Are those patterns lexically determined according to the principle you suggest, or due to something else?

I was engaging with you because I thought you wanted to learn how, not proving anything to you.

Of course it is not only lexically determined. Greek is an inflected language. There are ways that words can be used in the other moiety (speech style), by using appropriate grammatical strategies. I stated that in the initial pseudo-Greek example ("are provided" - although that is not a strictly true representation of the way that voice is used in Greek within and between the moieties, but more of an allusion to the fact that it is used in some way).

To answer that question, I think you need a clear enough way to state your principle that you can look at any text, divide it up, and test it. Once you have done that to enough examples, other people can look at your work and see if they agree with your conclusions.

This is not reasearch, there are no principles or conclusions. I don't need to state anything to be able to "look", "divide" and "test". It is a skill and it takes practice. In the initial pseudo-Greek example:

Feel free to keep developing your thoughts in this thread. I'm going to drop out now, I don't think we go about things in the same way, and we seem to be at cross-purposes, so I will drop out and leave you space to explore further.

I was trying to provide data that could help you state your theory more concretely and see if it holds or not. My intuition for where thoughts begin and end places some of these words in places you said they would not occur. But I don't know how you are dividing up the text, or what counts as the beginning or the ending of a thought.

I understand you put effort into that. Actually, I did the same search, and looked at the same set of verses before mentioning χρίειν and ἀλείφειν.

I think you've done a first step where you see some patterns in a text.

I am not at the first step in understanding this, you were.

As I said before, seeing patterns in the text is the third step. The first step is engaging with the text. The second step is recognising over a long period of time that the speech style of the text alternates between abstract / general statements and descriptions of details / concrete tangible things. The third step is that over continued wide reading, it is noticeable that some words only occur in one of the speech styles or the other, and some in both speech styles but with different meanings.

Are those patterns lexically determined according to the principle you suggest, or due to something else?

I was engaging with you because I thought you wanted to learn how, not proving anything to you.

Of course it is not only lexically determined. Greek is an inflected language. There are ways that words can be used in the other moiety (speech style), by using appropriate grammatical strategies. I stated that in the initial pseudo-Greek example ("are provided" - although that is not a strictly true representation of the way that voice is used in Greek within and between the moieties, but more of an allusion to the fact that it is used in some way).

To answer that question, I think you need a clear enough way to state your principle that you can look at any text, divide it up, and test it. Once you have done that to enough examples, other people can look at your work and see if they agree with your conclusions.

This is not reasearch, there are no principles or conclusions. I don't need to state anything to be able to "look", "divide" and "test". It is a skill and it takes practice. In the initial pseudo-Greek example: